Pro: Tejas Parasher

The charge usually brought against Black History Month is that it's divisiveness. For many, bombarding students with tales of Rosa Parks and the Million Man March in February—and only in February—seems to imply that Black History is somehow separate from American (or Canadian) History. Critics constantly harp on how, at least in the Obama era, we should be able to define ourselves as "American" or "Canadian" rather than by race.

If only those who made this argument would flip on the nearest TV and count how many seconds it takes for a black man to swagger onscreen bragging about AKs and gold-chains. They wouldn’t even need to wait for Much Music or BET. Fox, in all its crass glory, is ready with a show where the only black characters are being tackled to the ground for robbing some sweet old lady.

North America consistently feels the need to hold on to very narrow definitions of "blackness." Even as we boast that we have moved beyond race, that judging someone on skin colour is only confined to the world of sepia photographs, our popular culture dictates to twelve-year-olds what their identity is supposed to be. A garish caricature of the black man/woman is held up as what one must live up to, at the risk of failing one’s skin colour. “I am black," the message says. "Therefore, I must try to be x. After all, every black person who’s made a name for themselves is x.”

The frequency of these images is an inevitable consequence of living in 2010. With each new leap in technology, the media and all its distorted perceptions come at us even stronger. We can’t possibly expect kids to bury their heads in the sand and escape all reality. What we can do is open their eyes. We can help them realize that being "black" does not mean having to replicate some cardboard cut-out from 106 & Park.

This is where Black History Month comes in. For February, at least, impressionable young minds are given a perspective on the world that undercuts the nonsense. By having time specifically dedicated to black history and achievements, this is made obligatory and necessary. Yes, it may sometimes reek of worn-out symbolism; but in the era of COPS and T-Pain, unfortunately we have to resort to legislation to provide positive role models for black youth.

One February celebration always comes to my mind: Black History Month. Along with the other sub-categories like Jewish History and Asian History, African History is displaced from “regular history” (whatever ethnic group’s that may be). It’s taken out of its box for one special time of year.

Contra: Aschille Clarke-Mendes

Thankfully, I received the complete schooling on real, uncensored Americas’ History as a student in the Caribbean. Presumably, most curricula outside of North America provide non-Eurocentric dialogue on its roots and origins. Living in Canada and talking to its residents, however, I don’t get the same impact that African Heritage brought over. In fact, most people admit to only hearing short narrations of the gruelling 400-year African enslavement in high school after lengthy discussions on Norwegian Vikings finding Canada or Columbus “discovering” the West.

With all due respect to historian Carter G. Wood and his well-intentioned idea, one must really put the relevance of Black Freedom Month into question. How do we celebrate it? I can’t recall hearing about a mainstream remembrance this year, save for a handful of visual arts presentations and lunches. I remember being treated to “Black History month specials,” all week at residence last year. For the most part, “specials” meant barbecued chicken and rice or some variation of pork. Announcements flash on the TV screen presenting a timeline that stretched from Abraham Lincoln to Barack Obama, advertising a Black History program that presents the pragmatic histories of Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, Muhammad Ali, and Frederick Douglas’ narrative. We receive the same trivial information each year, additional anecdotes that give reasons for some chest-beating. Black men invented peanut butter and the traffic light, for example.

But why isn't more attention given to other aspects of Black History, besides tracking the progress of the African diaspora? It’s lesser known that Africans sailed to the Americas before the Europeans settled there. We also don't tend to hear the controversial debate over whether Lincoln freed the slaves at all. The remembrance is relegated to the shortest month of the year, picked off the shelf like Christmas lights, only to go back up when the month is done. Where is the integration into normal history? Why separate it from mainstream history as if they run parallel? I think this implies that enslaved Africans were only in the Americas for one month out of the year.